Four years ago, somebody wrote up a lengthy list of all the equipment that ESPN has at its massive complex on Middle Street.
It accidentally included $3.5 million worth of furniture and fixtures that were still in the box – and not supposed to be on the list of taxable personal property held by the sports giant.
An alert bureaucrat for the state caught the error last spring, notified ESPN and shortly afterward the city received a letter from Walter Riemer, senior manager of ESPN’s tax department.
He said the company had made an error and that as a result it was owed $890,000 by the city for taxes paid on items that shouldn’t have been on the list.
City officials said they reviewed the information and concluded, with a growing sense of panic, that ESPN was correct.
But sending a check to the city’s largest taxpayer for that much money would have created “a gaping hole” in Bristol’s already tight budget, said Comptroller Glenn Klocko.
He said that he and city Assessor Rich Lasky put their heads together to weigh options – Mayor William Stortz apparently played no role – and decided to approach ESPN to find out if it would agree to get its money back in two installments over the next two years instead of all at once.
In financial terms, Klocko said, “They’re Goliath. We’re David.”
Shelling out nearly $1 million would have pushed up property taxes by a third of a mill just to cover the tab, he said.
Fortunately, he said, ESPN agreed to the deal, even though it had every right to insist on the reimbursement immediately.
That gives the city’s Board of Finance the chance to factor the two large payments to ESPN into its budget figures, Klocko said, and to manage the problem instead of simply coping with it.”I want to say in big bold letters: thank you, ESPN,” Klocko said. “They were very nice.”
Finance Chairman Rich Miecznikowski also said that it would have been tough to deal with an unexpected deficit of $890,000 if ESPN had demanded its money right away.
*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
31 comments:
Did City Manager Klocko withhold this information from Mayor Ward?
It all happened last spring. I think that city councilors were told, but I'm not sure. I know Stortz was told, but apparently he left it to Klocko and Lasky to resolve.
About how much does ESPN pay in City Taxes each year anyway?
This was mentioned in public meetings too.
More than Klocko, Lasky, and Stortz were aware.
"In financial terms, Klocko said, 'They’re Goliath. We’re David.'"
I don't really agree with this. Compare operating budgets and I'll bet you see that the city is a "goliath" itself.
What is the case is that the city screwed up, big-time, and ESPN has the city "between a rock and a hard place". That would be a more appropriate analogy/quote Mr. Klocko.
Comparing ESPN to "Goliath" is wrong. Comparing Klock's office, the assessor and the tax-collector to the Three Stooges would be more appropriate.
ESPN maybe a Goliath, and they are in business to make money, but they have always been willing to work with the city.
I know that they had a good relationship with Nicastro, Couture, and Stortz, and I would belive that this relationship allowed the city to work out an agreement, just as they did with Birch street.
Certainly ALL mayors play a role in situations like this.
Speaking of Birch Street ...... Does anyone know how much ESPN paid the Taxpayers of the City of Bristol to acquire it for there personal use ??
Why is this the first time that the paper has printed on this?
Friday was the first time I heard anything about it.
2:44pm - lack of a lot of credibility "there" versus "their"?
Glad to know Stortz was on top of this...Goes to show you that he was the worst Mayor in City History.
Oh, those Bristol schools! They're quite a place for learnin'!
12:00
Maybe you are hearing only one side of the story, what Town Manager Klocko would like you to believe.
How would any mayor be aware unless his staff tod him?
Former Mayor Stortz told me Saturday that that city councilors and the finance board were aware of the ESPN tax issue. He said it was resolved in part by the negotiations he had over the Birch Street road closure that resulted in a section of the street being given to ESPN last summer (though the city had agreed to do it long before this tax problem came up).
Hate to tell you, but city councillors were NOT aware and I got that from a very credible source. So Stortz, as usual, is attempting to spread the wealth, so to speak. By the way, if anyone is angered, it should be at the administration four years ago and not the last one or the present one. As usual, people love to attack people who didn't create the deficit, which is where the blame and the anger should lie ... not how it was dealt with which was dealt with properly. Let's start shifting the blame to where it belongs. Who cares how it was resolved as long as it was resolved legitimately?
Why should anyone be angry at the administration four years ago over this? ESPN said it was its mistake, discovered only in 2007 by the state.
The curious thing to me is that nobody in power thought the public should know about it until many months after the fact. That type of secrecy about the public's money is wrong.
Is there not a statute of limitation in filing a tax appeal? I was told several years back by the Bristol Assessors office that there was after being charged for over 15 years for almost two acres of land I did not own. I was refunded for the prior three years and was told it was too late to appeal the other tax paid. Is someone getting special treatment here?
If this was for a 2004 tax payment, and the company asked for the money last spring, then it was within three years anyway.
But I'm not sure this is the same situation in any case.
Perhaps someone who's more familiar with it, though, can answer with something more meaningful than my own speculation.
"Four years ago, somebody wrote up a lengthy list of all the equipment that ESPN has at its massive complex on Middle Street. It accidentally included $3.5 million worth of furniture and fixtures that were still in the box – and not supposed to be on the list of taxable personal property held by the sports giant."
An accurate timeline needs to be established to determine whether or not they fall within the parameters of appeal. Here are the relevant statutes:
GENERAL STATUTES OF CONNECTICUT
Revised to January 1, 2007
Sec. 12-60. Correction of clerical error in assessment. Any clerical omission or mistake in the assessment of taxes may be corrected according to the fact by the assessors or board of assessment appeals, not later than three years following the tax due date relative to which such omission or mistake occurred, and the tax shall be levied and collected according to such corrected assessment. In the event that the issuance of a certificate of correction results in an increase to the assessment list of any person, written notice of such increase shall be sent to such person's last-known address by the assessor or board of assessment appeals within ten days immediately following the date such correction is made. Such notice shall include, with respect to each assessment list corrected, the assessment prior to and after such increase and the reason for such increase. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the assessor under this section may appeal the doings of the assessor to the board of assessment appeals as otherwise provided in this chapter, provided such appeal shall be extended in time to the next succeeding board of assessment appeals if the meetings of such board for the grand list have passed. Any person intending to so appeal to the board of assessment appeals may indicate that taxes paid by him for any additional assessment added in accordance with this section, during the pendency of such appeal, are paid "under protest" and thereupon such person shall not be liable for any interest on the taxes based upon such additional assessment, provided (1) such person shall have paid not less than seventy-five per cent of the amount of such taxes within the time specified or (2) the board of assessment appeals reduces valuation or removes items of property from the list of such person so that there is no tax liability related to additional assessment.
(1949 Rev., S. 1735; P.A. 90-101, S. 1; P.A. 95-283, S. 35, 68.)
History: P.A. 90-101 added (1) the limitation that any clerical omission or mistake may not be corrected later than three years following the tax due date and (2) the related provision for notice of the assessment is increased and the procedure for appeal to the board of tax review, including payment under protest during pendency of the appeal; P.A. 95-283 replaced board of tax review with board of assessment appeals, effective July 6, 1995.
Limitations on power conferred. 102 C. 210. Clerical omissions or mistakes do not include errors of substance. 136 C. 29. Cited. 179 C. 712. Cited. 195 C. 48; Id., 587. Cited. 204 C. 336. Cited. 240 C. 469. Cited. 242 C. 727.
Cited. 33 CA 270.
No time limit for making correction. 4 CS 391.
Collins:
Good thing your not my accountant. What was ESPN's profit after expenses?
Bloomberg News reported in September that ESPN was making $4.1 billion in profits annually, up 19 percent from the year before.
It said, though, that the company wasn't expected to continue to see such large profit increases in the future.
I know residents that have been overbilled for their taxes for years because the city had them listed as having more square footage than they really had. This came to light with the last assessment and the residents (3 of them) were all told that the city doesn't give refunds.
So what makes ESPN get a refund that the citizens can't get?
When Couture was in office the Bristol Press printed a scathing article every time he would breathe. Now we are finding all kinds of secrets from Stortz 2 years in office that were never made public.
Why didn't the Bristol Press shadow Stortz the same way they shadowed Couture?
I feel a sense of favoritism was there.
"When Couture was in office the Bristol Press printed a scathing article every time he would breathe"
This is the most untrue statement I ever heard. The Press refused to air almost anything bad about Couture.
If I recall correctly, ALL refunds are acted on by the Council.
Has this issue been acted on?
Will thet get a refund, will they get a reduction in the next tax bill, how will it be resolved?
And, how will it show up in the citys financials, or is that part of the relatively small surplus?
Was the tax collector involved, the Corporation Counsel involved?
If so, how can one declare it a secret?
I love that you're seeing what I have always heard -- that we're too hard on Mr. X or that we never say anything bad about Mr. X or that we're trying to get Mr. Y elected or that we're being horribly unfair to Mr. Y. It's kind of funny how the phone can ring with somebody complaining about how I slant everything to the Republicans and then, five minutes later, somebody is bending my ear for going easy on the Democrats.
The reality, which I learned long ago, is that we can't begin to please everyone.
How can I call it a secret? Because the city government did not tell the public that it had to pay back ESPN a gigantic amount of money until many months after the fact. That's the very essence of secrecy.
Nobody did ever answer my question posted on Jan 4th. Exactly how much tax does ESPN pay to Bristol each year?? Thanks
Next to last paragraph: Seems like nothing official has been done and that a soluion will be presented at which time officials and the public can comment.
Any one with common sense knows that you don't negotiate in public, and it was to the citys best interest to work out the details first.
I was told the deal was worked out many months ago. ESPN is to get its money in two installments, one this year, one next.
It's not "negotiating in public" to tell people about a deal that's been made.
That's just secrecy carried to an extreme. And it's wrong.
Did only one person work out that "deal" many months ago?
Why didn't they tell you then.
Surely Klocko must have talked with the lawyers, and the tax collector.
Too bad there wasn't as much concern when the city negotiated and then bought the Mall. I don't think it was even on the agenda.
And that has cost us big bucks.
Post a Comment